Following up on the rubric discussion, here's another challenging topic of teaching practice.
CHE has a review article by history prof Amna Khalid and education prof Jeffery Snyder on the use of trigger warnings for course (https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-data-is-in-trigger-warnings-dont-work) material. It is sure to trigger discussion.
The authors agree strongly with the intent, to limit debilitating trauma for those with post-traumatic stress syndrome, they find that the data from the decade of use shows the warnings to be counter productive.
First, they harm students with PTSD. "Trigger warnings do not alleviate emotional distress. They do not significantly reduce negative affect or minimize intrusive thoughts, two hallmarks of PTSD. Trigger warnings actually increased the anxiety of individuals with the most severe PTSD, prompting them to 'view trauma as more central to their life narrative.'"
Second, they tend to reduce learning by other students. "Trigger warnings impede meaningful engagement with difficult topics and reinforce the idea that students are inherently fragile." Teachers are removing such material from their curricula rather than deal with the warnings and their consequences.
"By contributing to a misguided safety-and-security model of education, trigger warnings ultimately deprive all students of the most powerful learning opportunities."
Third, they endorse Harvard researchers' recommendation (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167702620921341) that trigger warnings are "unvetted interventions" and their use is "irresponsible to victims of trauma."
Well that is sure to stir things up!
Have trigger warnings seen their day on your campus? What is current praxis in the education curriculum on using them?
There was some discussion in the Old Fora before research was done on the topic, so feel free to mention whether your assessment in that (now unsearchable) venue has been supported by subsequent research.
My initial sense was that they were infantilizing students, not empowering them. But I have never had a situation where there was a question about using them. What does real experience tell?
Yep, people in psychology who actually study trauma have been screaming this for years at this point. People in other fields however somehow think they know more about "trauma" than we do, so no one listens. What I *will* do is provide information on available resources when talking about issues that may bring up stuff for students in class. What I absolutely won't do is issue trigger warnings that suggest students are too fragile to handle it. For the reasons you've noted in your summary, that absolutely is harmful.
And don't get me started on using the word "trauma" for anything stressful. e.g., I can't count how many times some no doubt well-intentioned administrator or other non-psych person has referenced us "all experiencing trauma over the past year". No, we didn't. Some people did (people who had loved-ones die, front-line medical workers), most of us were just stressed. It both disrespects the experience of people who were actually traumatized and decreases resilience for everyone else to misuse the word that way.
As someone who left an abusive marriage and prefers not to be exposed to scenes with wanton, gratuitous violence, such warnings let me decide a) when/whether to read/listen to/watch the material in question, and b) to put my "internal force field" up to be able to distance myself emotionally from it: i.e., say to myself, "ok, this is not happening to you, nor is it going to." (Violence can beget boundary loss, can beget a sense of experienced personal immediacy.)
When organizing a worship service/workshop program for survivors of domestic violence, incest, and abuse, we always made sure to have counselors on hand in a safe room for those who had thought they could handle the material and suddenly found themselves hyperventilating, shaking or feeling sweaty and nauseous.
If one has been fortunate enough never to have dealt with such situations, this may seem like an extravagant precaution to take, and my first take on all the "proofs" of its counterproductivity were just, "Well, yeah, that gets them off the hook for having to be considerate of others less fortunate than themselves."
I generally handle such references well enough on my own, but I was "only" in that marriage for two years before I was able to get out.
Others who were either exposed to it from birth, were forcrd into a situation they were unable to leave, or witnessed unremitting violence in a war zone, may have flashbacks, nightmares, a sudden onset of tremors or other stress responses, and may even need temporary hospitalization to recover.
So, no, I don't think a couple of kindly-worded sentences is too much to ask, and I don't see how consideration for others' often horrific experiences "infantilizes" them.
Not to recognize mistreatment of others as exceptional is to normalize it.
And I hope no-one wants that.
M.
There are some issues with that article and research, as pointed out in this twitter thread by an expert https://twitter.com/metzpsych/status/1438553017243013124
I am with Puget though that much of the evidence of their benefit is not there
But what about the safe spaces?
And PUPPIES?????
Excuse me?
M.
Quote from: mamselle on September 17, 2021, 11:27:05 AM
Excuse me?
M.
The safe spaces and puppies were things set up on campuses when speakers were coming who might upset people. For the people most zealous about these things, there's no clear bounds to what they might think appropriate.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2021, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 17, 2021, 11:27:05 AM
Excuse me?
M.
The safe spaces and puppies were things set up on campuses when speakers were coming who might upset people. For the people most zealous about these things, there's no clear bounds to what they might think appropriate.
One of the points made is that such overzealousness makes a mockery of the kind of care that is actually needed and useful.
We discuss tough stuff in some of my classes, like torture. And you can't talk about torture without talking about sexual assault and rape, and worse.
I give a content warning so that nobody is caught off guard. It's like an MPAA or BBFC label.
And that's it.
Quote from: Hibush on September 17, 2021, 11:36:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2021, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 17, 2021, 11:27:05 AM
Excuse me?
M.
The safe spaces and puppies were things set up on campuses when speakers were coming who might upset people. For the people most zealous about these things, there's no clear bounds to what they might think appropriate.
One of the points made is that such overzealousness makes a mockery of the kind of care that is actually needed and useful.
Such overzealousness also negatively affects enrollment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html
Reality sucks. Trigger warning that reality can thoroughly upset one.
Quote from: dismalist on September 17, 2021, 12:34:05 PM
Reality sucks. Trigger warning that reality can thoroughly upset one.
I seem to recall that a few years back, there was an issue with Microsoft popup warnings basically whenever someone chose to open virtually any email attachment about the potential danger. Not only was it annoying, but people just came to ignore the warnings completely.
Bottom line: "Warnings" are only useful to the extent that they are limited enough to only be given when there is a real need for them. The lower the bar for sending them, the more they undermine their own value.
I would imagine the topics that could legitimately have them applied would be those that would be sobering to ordinary people. Having a respectful discussion would probably be as much or more useful than the warning.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 12:19:28 PM
We discuss tough stuff in some of my classes, like torture. And you can't talk about torture without talking about sexual assault and rape, and worse.
I give a content warning so that nobody is caught off guard. It's like an MPAA or BBFC label.
And that's it.
Most of my courses cover such stuff. I taught a course on World War II, which discussed, inter alia, the Holocaust, the bombing of Dresden, the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also taught a course on comparative slavery, which discussed, inter alia, rape, violence, torture, etc. And then I taught a course on race relations from Reconstruction to the civil rights movement, which discussed, inter alia, lynching, rape, torture, etc. I put on the syllabus, and mention the first class, that we will be covering such topics. I would understand why somebody might not want to take such a class. I mean, when I was an undergrad, I decided not to take an entire class on the Holocaust, just because it seemed like a hellish way to spend a semester.
On trauma: I think this is a case where the scientific meaning of a word and its common usage diverge. I think that the last period has been traumatic and depressing. I am, not however, traumatized or depressed in a clinical sense.
Quote from: jerseyjay on September 17, 2021, 06:04:02 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 12:19:28 PM
We discuss tough stuff in some of my classes, like torture. And you can't talk about torture without talking about sexual assault and rape, and worse.
I give a content warning so that nobody is caught off guard. It's like an MPAA or BBFC label.
And that's it.
Most of my courses cover such stuff. I taught a course on World War II, which discussed, inter alia, the Holocaust, the bombing of Dresden, the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also taught a course on comparative slavery, which discussed, inter alia, rape, violence, torture, etc. And then I taught a course on race relations from Reconstruction to the civil rights movement, which discussed, inter alia, lynching, rape, torture, etc. I put on the syllabus, and mention the first class, that we will be covering such topics. I would understand why somebody might not want to take such a class. I mean, when I was an undergrad, I decided not to take an entire class on the Holocaust, just because it seemed like a hellish way to spend a semester.
On trauma: I think this is a case where the scientific meaning of a word and its common usage diverge. I think that the last period has been traumatic and depressing. I am, not however, traumatized or depressed in a clinical sense.
Got any syllabi?
I should have added that I also warn students about which parts of my logic classes will be especially hard.
The point, as with normal content warnings, is just to make sure they aren't blindsided. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, it just lets them come to class with their game face on.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 08:01:00 PM
I should have added that I also warn students about which parts of my logic classes will be especially hard.
The point, as with normal content warnings, is just to make sure they aren't blindsided. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, it just lets them come to class with their game face on.
Trigger warning for logic? Hard? How about for arithmetic? Hard? How about for life?
Alas, no.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 08:01:00 PM
I should have added that I also warn students about which parts of my logic classes will be especially hard.
The point, as with normal content warnings, is just to make sure they aren't blindsided. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, it just lets them come to class with their game face on.
This seems like a perfectly appropriate approach. I think people who get all het up about trigger warnings are making it more complex than it needs to be. Ok, so rigorous research about PTSD suggests they don't work in a clinical fashion. But students are asking for them, and given how much admin bows down before the almighty student requests, I don't see why it's so hard to say 'note: today's class includes discussions of incest' or whatever.
Students select their classes (in part) on the basis of the material taught in those classes. They enroll in classes whose material is interesting, and they avoided classes whose material is not interesting. Why on earth shouldn't they know whether the material might or might not be distressing as well as interesting when they make those decisions?
People like to argue about slippery slopes (oh noes! What's next? Trigger warnings for life being hard*?! My vapours!), but that reasoning goes the other way: How
dare students demand information about course material! It
ruins the academic experience to know whether this course covers 19th century or 17th century literature! They have no need to know that this is a clinical psychology course rather than organic chemistry. Back in my day we just signed up for 'English' and 'Science' and we learned what we learned. Snowflakes these days!
See? Isn't that absurd? Just give students information that allows them to make decisions. That information includes times, instructors, prerequisites, and material covered in the course. It's a simple enough matter to indicate whether any of that material includes rape, violence, torture, or other commonly-accepted forms of wildly disagreeable stuff.
*I will note, parenthetically, that everyone who says students need to be prepared for the "real world" by late policies or whatever are, in fact, endorsing exactly this argument: prepare them for something disagreeable about life outside the university by making sure they know what is in it.
Here is my "trigger warning" from last semester's Comparative Slavery course:
QuoteNote about content and vocabulary: This is a course that examines different systems of human beings' buying and selling other human beings while denying their humanity. Slavery was based on violence and torture, including sexual violence. Slavery was based on and justified by racism. If you are not able to explore and discuss these subjects with maturity and sensitivity, or you find these subjects too uncomfortable, please do not take the course. As will be discussed in the course, there is no consensus among scholars and others about how to refer to certain people, places, and phenomena we will be examining; in addition, we will encounter vocabulary that (by today's standards and perhaps by contemporary standards) appears insensitive or just plain wrong. Again, if you are not able to discuss these topics with maturity and sensitivity, please do not take this class.
I do not spend much time on this. I do not think I have had students drop the class because of this instead, of say, the heavy reading schedule. (Although they don't have to tell me why they drop.) I do not have warnings on individual sessions. In part this "warning" was designed to allow me to talk about various subjects without having to put a warning each time I get near something awful. It serves as sort of an
eruv, covering the entire course.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with giving information about what the class will cover so students can decide whether to take it, especially if it isn't obvious from the course title or description (I would think that anyone signing up for a class on slavery would have a pretty good idea what they're in for, but you know your students best). I also think it is personally reasonable to give a heads up before showing graphic material in class. That's more like the rating on a movie.
What the research pretty clearly shows *is* harmful is suggesting, before talking about something, that some students may be too fragile to handle a topic and should avoid it. Let's see if I can explain with a metaphor-- imagine you're on a hike, thinking your doing OK managing the difficult trail, but your friend keeps asking every few minutes if you're OK. After a while you are likely to start to question whether you really are OK, since your friend seems to think you aren't. That's very different than your friend giving you the route description ahead of time so you can decide to go or not, and helping you out if it really does get too hard.
Quote from: ergative on September 18, 2021, 12:25:54 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 08:01:00 PM
I should have added that I also warn students about which parts of my logic classes will be especially hard.
The point, as with normal content warnings, is just to make sure they aren't blindsided. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, it just lets them come to class with their game face on.
This seems like a perfectly appropriate approach. I think people who get all het up about trigger warnings are making it more complex than it needs to be. Ok, so rigorous research about PTSD suggests they don't work in a clinical fashion. But students are asking for them, and given how much admin bows down before the almighty student requests, I don't see why it's so hard to say 'note: today's class includes discussions of incest' or whatever.
The question here is about what actions this
entitles students to take for
today's class. The idea that others have mentioned of a heads-up before the entire course makes perfect sense. On a class-by-class basis, it's not clear that there's any benefit. If a student thinks this class will be too traumatic, can s/he skip the class? Will s/he still have to do the assignments, tests, etc. covering the same material, which will presumably also traumatic? (Maybe even more so for having to talk about it her/himself.?)
Before the course, being able to decide whether or not to enroll is pretty clear-cut. Deciding how to handle today's class and
whatever course requirements stem from it is very murky.
Some of my classes contain discussions of violence, disease, suffering, death, abuse, self-harm, and various kinds of "deviance" or non-conformity to social norms. I don't give any warnings per se. Some of the material is very graphic -- even the Iliad.
I very rarely get any students finding material too difficult. Once a student opted out of an abortion discussion because she recently had an abortion. Once a student asked me to stop talking about death because she had experienced loss. Never has an administrator or chair said anything to me about worries regarding the material.
So I am wondering where the call for "trigger warnings" comes from.
Quote from: jerseyjay on September 17, 2021, 06:04:02 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 12:19:28 PM
We discuss tough stuff in some of my classes, like torture. And you can't talk about torture without talking about sexual assault and rape, and worse.
I give a content warning so that nobody is caught off guard. It's like an MPAA or BBFC label.
And that's it.
Most of my courses cover such stuff. I taught a course on World War II, which discussed, inter alia, the Holocaust, the bombing of Dresden, the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also taught a course on comparative slavery, which discussed, inter alia, rape, violence, torture, etc. And then I taught a course on race relations from Reconstruction to the civil rights movement, which discussed, inter alia, lynching, rape, torture, etc. I put on the syllabus, and mention the first class, that we will be covering such topics. I would understand why somebody might not want to take such a class. I mean, when I was an undergrad, I decided not to take an entire class on the Holocaust, just because it seemed like a hellish way to spend a semester.
On trauma: I think this is a case where the scientific meaning of a word and its common usage diverge. I think that the last period has been traumatic and depressing. I am, not however, traumatized or depressed in a clinical sense.
Yeah, I'm a historian too, and almost everything I teach is potentially upsetting. I tend to think most warnings would be superfluous. If you are taking a course on the Civil War, I assume you're prepared for violence and death. If we are reading something truly upsetting, I might mention that it's a tough read. I don't do that to prevent trauma. I just think it's good for students to not go in completely blind to something really awful.
As an undergrad we took a sequence of two required courses in which a great deal of fiction was required reading. However, each instructor chose the works that would be read, and you wouldn't know what until you went to the bookstore and in some cases until during the course itself. Trigger warnings in such a class (especially since the works were often ones not familiar to the majority of students) would have been appropriate. As an example, a rape victim absolutely should be allowed some choice as to when they choose to deal with the subject, not as a part of an unexpected freshman or sophomore class discussion.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 18, 2021, 11:59:58 AM
As an undergrad we took a sequence of two required courses in which a great deal of fiction was required reading. However, each instructor chose the works that would be read, and you wouldn't know what until you went to the bookstore and in some cases until during the course itself. Trigger warnings in such a class (especially since the works were often ones not familiar to the majority of students) would have been appropriate. As an example, a rape victim absolutely should be allowed some choice as to when they choose to deal with the subject, not as a part of an unexpected freshman or sophomore class discussion.
I think in some circumstances it makes sense to give students a heads up. ("We're going to start reading Lolita on Monday. It was and is a really controversial book. It's about a relationship between a teacher and an underage student and there are some parts of it that are pretty graphic and pretty upsetting. It is an important and interesting book...as always, let me know if you have any questions or concerns.")
However, I really don't think I could teach effectively if I needed to give students a heads up before sexual violence came up in my classes. Just this semester, I can think of at least four times where we talked about it as it related to some reading or lecture. It wasn't at the center of the reading in any of these cases, but it was there in the background and it was important to discuss it, at least briefly. I can't really give students a choice to leave every time sexual violence comes up in my class. There was a lot of sexual violence in history. I'd be a crappy teacher if I just ignored it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2021, 08:01:50 AM
Before the course, being able to decide whether or not to enroll is pretty clear-cut. Deciding how to handle today's class and whatever course requirements stem from it is very murky.
Right, I think this is where the discussion starts having people talking past each other. One extreme is not letting students know anything about what they're getting, into, and the consensus seems to be that there's no advantage of that. We should tell them before they enroll in the course.
But the other extreme, which is what tends to elicit shrieks of 'snowflake!' is this:
Quote from: Caracal on September 18, 2021, 01:53:53 PM
I can't really give students a choice to leave every time sexual violence comes up in my class. There was a lot of sexual violence in history. I'd be a crappy teacher if I just ignored it.
I think we're also in agreement on this too. Just because certain topics might be more distressing for some than for others is no reason to excuse them from that portion of the class. Especially if we gave them the option to pass on that before they enrolled, we shouldn't be excusing them from class every time they're uncomfy.
So what are we arguing about? Is it whether we should provide content warnings on the day's material, rather than the entire course's material? That certainly seems to be what people here says they do:
Quote from: Caracal on September 18, 2021, 10:23:49 AM
If we are reading something truly upsetting, I might mention that it's a tough read. I don't do that to prevent trauma. I just think it's good for students to not go in completely blind to something really awful.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 08:01:00 PM
I should have added that I also warn students about which parts of my logic classes will be especially hard.
The point, as with normal content warnings, is just to make sure they aren't blindsided. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, it just lets them come to class with their game face on.
But then, from Puget's extremely good analogy about hikes, maybe even this is too much? Or is it fine to give a quick content note--like movie ratings on Netflix that explain, earnestly, that this show includes some strong language and moments of character danger--as long as we don't actually suggest that students are too fragile to handle it. Maybe framing it the way jerseyjay does in the syllabus--these are sensitive topics, so be prepared to discuss them respectfully and maturely--is the way to go. It provides the content note but frames it in terms not of trauma but as a reminder of the expectations of classroom behavioral standards.
Quote from: ergative on September 18, 2021, 02:53:34 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2021, 08:01:50 AM
Before the course, being able to decide whether or not to enroll is pretty clear-cut. Deciding how to handle today's class and whatever course requirements stem from it is very murky.
Right, I think this is where the discussion starts having people talking past each other. One extreme is not letting students know anything about what they're getting, into, and the consensus seems to be that there's no advantage of that. We should tell them before they enroll in the course.
But the other extreme, which is what tends to elicit shrieks of 'snowflake!' is this:
Quote from: Caracal on September 18, 2021, 01:53:53 PM
I can't really give students a choice to leave every time sexual violence comes up in my class. There was a lot of sexual violence in history. I'd be a crappy teacher if I just ignored it.
I think we're also in agreement on this too. Just because certain topics might be more distressing for some than for others is no reason to excuse them from that portion of the class. Especially if we gave them the option to pass on that before they enrolled, we shouldn't be excusing them from class every time they're uncomfy.
So what are we arguing about? Is it whether we should provide content warnings on the day's material, rather than the entire course's material? That certainly seems to be what people here says they do:
Quote from: Caracal on September 18, 2021, 10:23:49 AM
If we are reading something truly upsetting, I might mention that it's a tough read. I don't do that to prevent trauma. I just think it's good for students to not go in completely blind to something really awful.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 17, 2021, 08:01:00 PM
I should have added that I also warn students about which parts of my logic classes will be especially hard.
The point, as with normal content warnings, is just to make sure they aren't blindsided. It doesn't let anyone off the hook, it just lets them come to class with their game face on.
But then, from Puget's extremely good analogy about hikes, maybe even this is too much? Or is it fine to give a quick content note--like movie ratings on Netflix that explain, earnestly, that this show includes some strong language and moments of character danger--as long as we don't actually suggest that students are too fragile to handle it. Maybe framing it the way jerseyjay does in the syllabus--these are sensitive topics, so be prepared to discuss them respectfully and maturely--is the way to go. It provides the content note but frames it in terms not of trauma but as a reminder of the expectations of classroom behavioral standards.
Yeah, I think that's all reasonable. What I don't think is helpful to anyone is the tendency to view these kinds of practices as a set of rules, rather than ways to give students some context for their readings and class discussions. A couple years ago, I assigned a book about lynching in the US. It was a good book, but it was tough. I told the students it was an upsetting reading beforehand.
Then when we discussed it in class, I told the students that as a historian, I read about pretty terrible things all the time, and while I'm not numb to it, I usually find it easy to keep a professional distance from the material. However, with this stuff, I would be reading back through it trying to get ready for class and would just get lost in the horror of it all. And then we talked about whether we should read this stuff and what the point was.
I'm a lot more comfortable with that kind of approach then framing it in terms of a need for trigger warnings before anything potentially upsetting comes up.
One thing that happens with some of these discussions in my field that may not in others is that students may feel more complicit in some of what we're discussing, and that can be disturbing when you realize the implications of your commitments.
Take torture again (note: this is a very general sketch of how a class on the topic might proceed. I'm omitting a lot of crucial pedagogical detail). If we're examining the ethical justifications for torture, ticking bomb cases are bound to come up. And film and TV have really primed us to accept ticking bomb cases, and to accept that we should torture in those scenarios (never mind that the thought experiment itself is seriously flawed). Ok, great: so, before you dive into the topic, students for the most part accept the utilitarian calculus that underlies that scenario. And if you ask them before going into the topic, they'll say they think you should torture the terrorist, even though that's an awful thing to do. They'll even put themselves in the heroic position and say I'd torture the terrorist.
And when you start breaking the case down, it becomes clear to them that this means they're also committed to torturing an innocent--say, a child--if it means saving thousands of lives, as distasteful as that is. Ok, fine. So far, so good.
But that's because they're imagining pulling off fingernails and beating someone up. When they learn about the critical role that rape and sexual assault play in torture, they connect the dots: they've just signed themselves up to do that to a child. And that's (rightly) distressing.
It's really important to think through your commitments in ths way. But you can't just spring a discussion like that on people, because it's extremely upsetting. It has to be handled very carefully, and as far as I'm concerned content warnings are part of doing that (though far from the whole story).
Now, not all tough topics are like that. But a lot of them involve sufficiently similar structural features that I, for one, want to be careful about introducing them.
My warnings about logic are different: they're about acknowledging the difficulty so that students don't feel blindsided or left behind, and to hedge off the math-phobia before it gets too bad. Many students just don't expect that logic will look as math-y as it does, especially as you get into more serious logic. The shift from natural language to the propositional calculus is big and scary, and the shift from that to mathematical logic is kind of horrific.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 19, 2021, 08:26:07 AM
One thing that happens with some of these discussions in my field that may not in others is that students may feel more complicit in some of what we're discussing, and that can be disturbing when you realize the implications of your commitments.
Take torture again (note: this is a very general sketch of how a class on the topic might proceed. I'm omitting a lot of crucial pedagogical detail). If we're examining the ethical justifications for torture, ticking bomb cases are bound to come up. And film and TV have really primed us to accept ticking bomb cases, and to accept that we should torture in those scenarios (never mind that the thought experiment itself is seriously flawed). Ok, great: so, before you dive into the topic, students for the most part accept the utilitarian calculus that underlies that scenario. And if you ask them before going into the topic, they'll say they think you should torture the terrorist, even though that's an awful thing to do. They'll even put themselves in the heroic position and say I'd torture the terrorist.
And when you start breaking the case down, it becomes clear to them that this means they're also committed to torturing an innocent--say, a child--if it means saving thousands of lives, as distasteful as that is. Ok, fine. So far, so good.
But that's because they're imagining pulling off fingernails and beating someone up. When they learn about the critical role that rape and sexual assault play in torture, they connect the dots: they've just signed themselves up to do that to a child. And that's (rightly) distressing.
That's a great example, and it points out why you want to encourage people to be part of these discussions, rather than avoid them entirely. In our morally polarized society, people from various viewpoints want to suggest there is the side of the angels and everything else. These tough moral dilemmas that provide no completely satisfactory choice is what students need to struggle with as part of becoming "real adults". Humility is a very rare commodity these days.
Quote from: Hibush on September 17, 2021, 11:36:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2021, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: mamselle on September 17, 2021, 11:27:05 AM
Excuse me?
M.
The safe spaces and puppies were things set up on campuses when speakers were coming who might upset people. For the people most zealous about these things, there's no clear bounds to what they might think appropriate.
One of the points made is that such overzealousness makes a mockery of the kind of care that is actually needed and useful.
Or just that claiming that something is going to upset the listener is a way of claiming that something important and valid is being said. For example, one may say, 'we need to have a difficult conversation about race.' Diversity departments with a political agenda do this.
The fact that something being said upsets someone or might upset someone is not evidence that the thing being said is accurate! Or it may upset someone for a different reason than the one identified, that is, the listener decides it is political propaganda being presented as fact, and his reaction to hearing it must follow a script.
ETA: The worst of these sessions actually sort the listener's possible reactions into categories (all unacceptable) in advance of the presentation, such as silence, leaving the room, challenging, anger. So the object is not to give the listener an opportunity to minimize 'trauma' from the hearing. The object is to induce the unacceptable stress reaction and then make a public spectacle of the person showing these purported signs of unmanageable stress.
As Jordan Peterson said 'your speech is not difficult because it is challenging to my preconceptions. It's painful to hear because it's so illogical.'
By this I'm not referring to individual posts here. Just the subject of warning someone that something will be upsetting.
Quote from: jerseyjay on September 18, 2021, 05:42:49 AM
Here is my "trigger warning" from last semester's Comparative Slavery course:
QuoteNote about content and vocabulary: This is a course that examines different systems of human beings' buying and selling other human beings while denying their humanity. Slavery was based on violence and torture, including sexual violence. Slavery was based on and justified by racism. If you are not able to explore and discuss these subjects with maturity and sensitivity, or you find these subjects too uncomfortable, please do not take the course. As will be discussed in the course, there is no consensus among scholars and others about how to refer to certain people, places, and phenomena we will be examining; in addition, we will encounter vocabulary that (by today's standards and perhaps by contemporary standards) appears insensitive or just plain wrong. Again, if you are not able to discuss these topics with maturity and sensitivity, please do not take this class.
I do not spend much time on this. I do not think I have had students drop the class because of this instead, of say, the heavy reading schedule. (Although they don't have to tell me why they drop.) I do not have warnings on individual sessions. In part this "warning" was designed to allow me to talk about various subjects without having to put a warning each time I get near something awful. It serves as sort of an eruv, covering the entire course.
Seems reasonable enough in today's climate. Part of the solution would seem to be, when giving content warnings of this sort, to avoid using the term "trigger warning." Since that term seems to have become "triggering" in its own right.
Quote from: apl68 on September 20, 2021, 08:09:57 AM
Quote from: jerseyjay on September 18, 2021, 05:42:49 AM
Here is my "trigger warning" from last semester's Comparative Slavery course:
QuoteNote about content and vocabulary: This is a course that examines different systems of human beings' buying and selling other human beings while denying their humanity. Slavery was based on violence and torture, including sexual violence. Slavery was based on and justified by racism. If you are not able to explore and discuss these subjects with maturity and sensitivity, or you find these subjects too uncomfortable, please do not take the course. As will be discussed in the course, there is no consensus among scholars and others about how to refer to certain people, places, and phenomena we will be examining; in addition, we will encounter vocabulary that (by today's standards and perhaps by contemporary standards) appears insensitive or just plain wrong. Again, if you are not able to discuss these topics with [i]maturity and sensitivity, [/i]please do not take this class.
I do not spend much time on this. I do not think I have had students drop the class because of this instead, of say, the heavy reading schedule. (Although they don't have to tell me why they drop.) I do not have warnings on individual sessions. In part this "warning" was designed to allow me to talk about various subjects without having to put a warning each time I get near something awful. It serves as sort of an eruv, covering the entire course.
Seems reasonable enough in today's climate. Part of the solution would seem to be, when giving content warnings of this sort, to avoid using the term "trigger warning." Since that term seems to have become "triggering" in its own right.
Now it's getting confusing. Avoiding the class because either (1) one does not want to be exposed to things that are either too upsetting to get a vivid account of or (2) too emotionally charged in today's environment for one to risk exposing their thoughts in discussion, would be a decision involving self-awareness and maturity.
Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.
Quote from: dismalist on September 24, 2021, 05:30:21 PM
Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.
Given the obvious infinite regression this leads to, how do they resolve this paradox?
Quote from: dismalist on September 24, 2021, 05:30:21 PM
Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.
Well, you know...Massachusetts.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2021, 06:15:03 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 24, 2021, 05:30:21 PM
Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.
Given the obvious infinite regression this leads to, how do they resolve this paradox?
Via the fact that this story relates to a simple student generated suggestion that "content note" might be a preferable phrase to trigger warning. And their reasoning lines up with several of the concerns raised on this thread, namely that it is more appropriate to share details about content that might be encountered, rather than "warn" people that something negative is going to happen.
Importantly, this is not a college mandate, and the student maintained list indicates clearly that "This list is meant to be a tool to share information and suggestions about language usage. Use of the suggested alternatives is not a university expectation, requirement or reflection of policy. As shared in Brandeis University's Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression, the language you choose to use or not use is entirely up to you."
https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories (https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories)
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 11:32:08 AM
https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories (https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories)
Remember, these are students working on their own to make suggestions, it isn't a university policy document in any way. Some of the ones under "violent language" really are silly (I doubt too many people honestly have a problem with "killing it" or "give it a shot"), but the rest of the categories have what I would think are pretty sensible suggestions for the most part.
And per the topic of the thread, their reasons for preferring "content note" to "trigger warning" are well-founded based on the research and in line with what many have suggested here.
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 11:32:08 AM
https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories (https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories)
From the About This Project section:
"This list is meant to be a tool to share information and suggestions about language usage. Use of the suggested alternatives is not a university expectation, requirement or reflection of policy. As shared in Brandeis University's Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression, the language you choose to use or not use is entirely up to you."
Quote from: Puget on September 25, 2021, 11:48:14 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 11:32:08 AM
https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories (https://sites.google.com/brandeis.edu/parcsuggestedlanguagelist/categories)
Remember, these are students working on their own to make suggestions, it isn't a university policy document in any way. Some of the ones under "violent language" really are silly (I doubt too many people honestly have a problem with "killing it" or "give it a shot"), but the rest of the categories have what I would think are pretty sensible suggestions for the most part.
And per the topic of the thread, their reasons for preferring "content note" to "trigger warning" are well-founded based on the research and in line with what many have suggested here.
Strangely, I tend to agree in some ways. While many word suggestions are downright silly, use of others is general good manners.
I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American. Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.
The good sense of posters here who wish to point to content is easily fulfilled by writing a proper syllabus. No need for any new terms at all. Thus, the terms must be doing something different from or in addition to informing students about content.
That the suggestions are not official university policy is beside the point. The lists well reflect the temper of the times.
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:08:53 PM
I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American. Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.
Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.
Quote from: Puget on September 25, 2021, 12:28:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:08:53 PM
I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American. Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.
Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.
I'm not lecturing people on what they should be called. People can call themselves whatever they like. I'm lecturing people that sometimes new words mean the same thing as old words -- such as trigger warning and content note.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 25, 2021, 07:00:36 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 24, 2021, 05:30:21 PM
Just heard the claim that at Brandeis, the term trigger warning now requires a trigger warning.
Well, you know...Massachusetts.
Watch it.
M.
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:38:25 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 25, 2021, 12:28:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:08:53 PM
I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American. Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.
Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.
I'm not lecturing people on what they should be called. People can call themselves whatever they like. I'm lecturing people that sometimes new words mean the same thing as old words -- such as trigger warning and content note.
Note: do not pull content.
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:38:25 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 25, 2021, 12:28:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:08:53 PM
I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American. Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.
Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.
I'm not lecturing people on what they should be called. People can call themselves whatever they like. I'm lecturing people that sometimes new words mean the same thing as old words -- such as trigger warning and content note.
Sometimes words have the same denotative meaning, but vastly different connotative meanings. The term 'trigger warning' has picked up a dismissive connotation because so many people have dismissed the perfectly valid concern that some content deserves a note of some sort, and so now that same concern is looking for a new label. Linguists call it the euphemism treadmill: words pick up connotations, and people who want to refer to the same concept without that connotation must find a new word to express it.
This is why terms for racial groups change so much: Whatever term is in current use, racists are going to taint it, and so the group must find themselves a new word that doesn't carry the taint. It's not fickleness and it's not fashion. It is not because these people "can't make up their mind" or whatever criticism is lobbed at them whenever they ask to be called by a new name. This treadmill is how language works because it is how bigotry works; and it makes me desperately sad to see words for useful concepts get poisoned by people who don't want to engage with those concepts in good faith.
No, the objection against the term "trigger warning" is that it is a metaphor founded on gun violence. The thought is that in some cases it may even produce the kind of trauma that such warnings are meant to forestall. The objection is not to do with the phrase losing denotative force.
Now, I don't agree with trigger warnings or content warnings, whatever you call them. Nevertheless that is the now current widespread objection to the term "trigger warning."
Quote from: ergative on September 26, 2021, 04:00:44 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:38:25 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 25, 2021, 12:28:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 25, 2021, 12:08:53 PM
I do believe, however, that much of the word usage is merely fashion. Words spread like viruses, after all. A telling example is the suggestion of using Black instead of African-American. Not too long ago, the idea was reversed. And a new name will surely emerge or be re-reversed.
Well sure, that's how language works. It doesn't change something being problematic or not now that it had a different meaning before or may in the future. We should call people what they want to be called, not lecture them on how they used to want to be called something else.
I'm not lecturing people on what they should be called. People can call themselves whatever they like. I'm lecturing people that sometimes new words mean the same thing as old words -- such as trigger warning and content note.
Sometimes words have the same denotative meaning, but vastly different connotative meanings. The term 'trigger warning' has picked up a dismissive connotation because so many people have dismissed the perfectly valid concern that some content deserves a note of some sort, and so now that same concern is looking for a new label. Linguists call it the euphemism treadmill: words pick up connotations, and people who want to refer to the same concept without that connotation must find a new word to express it.
This is why terms for racial groups change so much: Whatever term is in current use, racists are going to taint it, and so the group must find themselves a new word that doesn't carry the taint. It's not fickleness and it's not fashion. It is not because these people "can't make up their mind" or whatever criticism is lobbed at them whenever they ask to be called by a new name. This treadmill is how language works because it is how bigotry works; and it makes me desperately sad to see words for useful concepts get poisoned by people who don't want to engage with those concepts in good faith.
If we ever run out of racism, linguistics will fall on hard times.
ETA: The current climate says any term used by white people has racism in it, so the expiration date is fast approaching.
I'm seeing news reports of racially-motivated brawling at school sporting events. Haven't seen any such thing in years. Even the horrific murder of Kelly Proctor by the McGuane brothers (2005) was widely accepted as just a horrible grudge match. But today, parents are fighting about race. So why shouldn't kids? As the song says 'You've Got To Be Carefully Taught.'
Thanks, liberals.
Quote from: ergative on September 26, 2021, 04:00:44 AM
Sometimes words have the same denotative meaning, but vastly different connotative meanings. The term 'trigger warning' has picked up a dismissive connotation because so many people have dismissed the perfectly valid concern that some content deserves a note of some sort, and so now that same concern is looking for a new label. Linguists call it the euphemism treadmill: words pick up connotations, and people who want to refer to the same concept without that connotation must find a new word to express it.
This is often because there is some fundamental reality behind the words that is inescapable. For instance, "crippled" to "handicapped" to "disabled" and so on. The fact is that a person who has some condition which makes them unable to do what the vast majority of people are able to do
is at a disadvantage in certain situations. Changing the language to try to obscure that fact will only work for so long until that
reality rears its ugly head. In situations where the term is irrelevant, it doesn't need to get used at all. So, if my friend "Bob" is an awesome guitarist, his being in a wheelchair is irrelevant. However, if I'm rounding up friends to help me move, it is. Someone who has heard me talk about Bob may ask if he's going to help with the move if they don't know about the wheelchair. At that point, referring to that fact makes sense
regardless of what language is used, and
it has to make the same point.
Quote from: Hegemony on September 26, 2021, 05:32:54 AM
No, the objection against the term "trigger warning" is that it is a metaphor founded on gun violence. The thought is that in some cases it may even produce the kind of trauma that such warnings are meant to forestall. The objection is not to do with the phrase losing denotative force.
Now, I don't agree with trigger warnings or content warnings, whatever you call them. Nevertheless that is the now current widespread objection to the term "trigger warning."
If you actually read the students' explanation about why they prefer "content note" it has nothing to do with gun violence, and in fact I've never heard anyone object to "trigger warning" on that ground-- not saying no one has, but "trigger" obviously isn't a term just for guns. Rather, it has to do with many of the problems I and others have noted in this thread-- that you shouldn't tell people what they're going to feel, and imply they can't cope. "Content note" is more neutral, just providing information.
Whatever we call them, I think we've more or less agreed here there is a reasonable balance between letting students know what sort of material will be covered in a class so they can decide whether to take it, but then not brining it up continuously in class (with the possible exemption of a heads-up before showing something particularly graphic).
Quote from: Puget on September 26, 2021, 06:54:54 AM
If you actually read the students' explanation about why they prefer "content note" it has nothing to do with gun violence, and in fact I've never heard anyone object to "trigger warning" on that ground-- not saying no one has, but "trigger" obviously isn't a term just for guns. Rather, it has to do with many of the problems I and others have noted in this thread-- that you shouldn't tell people what they're going to feel, and imply they can't cope. "Content note" is more neutral, just providing information.
What I was going by was the long, long discussion of this in several groups I belong to. In those groups, the association with guns is the factor that prompted them to change terminology. Your mileage may vary.
Quote from: ergative on September 26, 2021, 04:00:44 AM
This is why terms for racial groups change so much: Whatever term is in current use, racists are going to taint it, and so the group must find themselves a new word that doesn't carry the taint. It's not fickleness and it's not fashion. It is not because these people "can't make up their mind" or whatever criticism is lobbed at them whenever they ask to be called by a new name. This treadmill is how language works because it is how bigotry works; and it makes me desperately sad to see words for useful concepts get poisoned by people who don't want to engage with those concepts in good faith.
That's sometimes true, but it is often more complicated than that. Black was considered to be at least mildly offensive until the later 1960s. The use of black as an acceptable term came out of ideas of racial self assertiveness connected to slogans like "Black Power" or "Black is Beautiful."
African-American has a very complicated story. For a period in the early 19th century, many free blacks described themselves as African. That's why you have the African Methodist Episcopal Church. This was connected to interest in African emigration movements among some free prominent free black leaders. By the 1830s, the colonization movement lost ground, and Black Abolitionists like David Walker and Frederick Douglass argued that blacks were fully citizens of the United States and should stay and fight for freedom and equality and the term fell out of use. African-American came about in the wake of an interest in pan africanism among some Civil Rights figures.
Negro didn't really become offensive because racists coopted it. It was more the other way around. When people stop using a term to describe themselves, it becomes rude to continue to use it. That often seems to increase as the people who would innocently use an obsolete term die. I doubt anybody was ever particularly offended that my grandmother said "negro," because she was old and grew up in a period where it was the polite term. If I said it, I would almost certainly be trying to provoke.
I don't actually think there's anything offensive about the description "Hebrew." At one point it was the polite term used to refer to Jewish people and you had Hebrew Benevolent Associations. But if someone starts talking about hebrews, my guard is going to go up, because its just not a self descriptor anymore and I'm going to wonder about the motivations of anyone who uses it.
Quote from: Puget on September 26, 2021, 06:54:54 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on September 26, 2021, 05:32:54 AM
No, the objection against the term "trigger warning" is that it is a metaphor founded on gun violence. The thought is that in some cases it may even produce the kind of trauma that such warnings are meant to forestall. The objection is not to do with the phrase losing denotative force.
Now, I don't agree with trigger warnings or content warnings, whatever you call them. Nevertheless that is the now current widespread objection to the term "trigger warning."
If you actually read the students' explanation about why they prefer "content note" it has nothing to do with gun violence, and in fact I've never heard anyone object to "trigger warning" on that ground-- not saying no one has, but "trigger" obviously isn't a term just for guns. Rather, it has to do with many of the problems I and others have noted in this thread-- that you shouldn't tell people what they're going to feel, and imply they can't cope. "Content note" is more neutral, just providing information.
Whatever we call them, I think we've more or less agreed here there is a reasonable balance between letting students know what sort of material will be covered in a class so they can decide whether to take it, but then not bringing it up continuously in class (with the possible exemption of a heads-up before showing something particularly graphic).
I like the "content note" terminology for being neutral and with minimal additional connotation. I always felt the "Trigger warning" implied that some students' psyches were on a hair trigger, and the mere mention of a particular topic would trigger a mental trauma that would incapacitate them. I don't think it is useful to think of the class that way or to treat them as if they can't cope with learning difficult material.
Quote from: Hibush on September 27, 2021, 12:07:33 PM
I like the "content note" terminology for being neutral and with minimal additional connotation. I always felt the "Trigger warning" implied that some students' psyches were on a hair trigger, and the mere mention of a particular topic would trigger a mental trauma that would incapacitate them. I don't think it is useful to think of the class that way or to treat them as if they can't cope with learning difficult material.
Unfortunately, we live in a society, (and much of academia accepts the idea), where this is
precisely the reason that certain ideas and viewpoints should not be allowed to be expressed- because they will cause too much "harm" to certain people.
I don't know what society you people are living in, but the one I'm in isn't much like that. It is true that I've seen some people talk about microagressions and the like, but I've seen no sign that that stuff is taken seriously by deans or chairs.
It seems to me that both sides of the debate are guilty of some oversensitivity and hyperbole.
Quote from: downer on September 27, 2021, 12:33:44 PM
I don't know what society you people are living in, but the one I'm in isn't much like that. It is true that I've seen some people talk about microagressions and the like, but I've seen no sign that that stuff is taken seriously by deans or chairs.
It seems to me that both sides of the debate are guilty of some oversensitivity and hyperbole.
With few exceptions, they (provosts and chancellors too) take seriously which way the political wind is blowing and little else. There are some winds from a new direction recently, for example, Larry Elder causing Gaviner Newsom to outspend him 10-1 to beat back the recall effort (normally a guy who's on record promoting no illegal minimum wage would never have gotten out of his basement with a political campaign), Greg Gutfeld is now #1 of late night TV, oh-so-genteel anti anti-racist John McWhorter now gets to write regularly in the decidedly woke NYT (to their credit), for example. Time will tell.
At our school the provost issued a pro-CRT cliche filled rant months ago but has yet to require 'training.' Time will tell.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2021, 12:20:03 PM
Quote from: Hibush on September 27, 2021, 12:07:33 PM
I like the "content note" terminology for being neutral and with minimal additional connotation. I always felt the "Trigger warning" implied that some students' psyches were on a hair trigger, and the mere mention of a particular topic would trigger a mental trauma that would incapacitate them. I don't think it is useful to think of the class that way or to treat them as if they can't cope with learning difficult material.
Unfortunately, we live in a society, (and much of academia accepts the idea), where this is precisely the reason that certain ideas and viewpoints should not be allowed to be expressed- because they will cause too much "harm" to certain people.
^ plus one. Although academia is
more speech intolerant than the lay public, more interested in sorting people into racial or other categories and then authoritatively meting out different judgements to each, and much more responsible for the mess we're in.
Quote from: downer on September 27, 2021, 12:33:44 PM
I don't know what society you people are living in, but the one I'm in isn't much like that. It is true that I've seen some people talk about microagressions and the like, but I've seen no sign that that stuff is taken seriously by deans or chairs.
It seems to me that both sides of the debate are guilty of some oversensitivity and hyperbole.
That's usually how this stuff goes. Some weird thing happens at Wesleyan and people pretend its some massive national issue where nobody can teach anything anymore. Nobody at my institution, student, faculty or admin has ever even uttered the words "trigger warnings," and I continue to teach about various upsetting things without the slightest complaint.
We are in different times now. It's easier than ever to lose your job, and for crazier reasons than ever before.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 05:28:25 AM
We are in different times now. It's easier than ever to lose your job, and for crazier reasons than ever before.
If this were a student paper, I'd write on it. "Evidence? This is a big assertion." I probably would not be particularly impressed with the student's reasoning skills if the evidence they provided was 20 news stories from the last 2 years about weird different incidents, many with complicating factors or missing information.
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 04:27:02 AM
Quote from: downer on September 27, 2021, 12:33:44 PM
I don't know what society you people are living in, but the one I'm in isn't much like that. It is true that I've seen some people talk about microagressions and the like, but I've seen no sign that that stuff is taken seriously by deans or chairs.
It seems to me that both sides of the debate are guilty of some oversensitivity and hyperbole.
That's usually how this stuff goes. Some weird thing happens at Wesleyan and people pretend its some massive national issue where nobody can teach anything anymore. Nobody at my institution, student, faculty or admin has ever even uttered the words "trigger warnings," and I continue to teach about various upsetting things without the slightest complaint.
Pre-covid, there were lots of stories from all over the places of speakers and/or events being *cancelled or having to be moved off campus due to protests, with the protests based on the "harm" that someone
giving a presentation would produce.
It's not as part of a class, but given that those are voluntary events, the idea that being
on the same campus where ideas are expressed that some don't like is too traumatic for people to handle is pretty much the essence of what "trigger warnings" are about.
(*Or protestors shouting down speakers, pulling fire alarms, etc.to prevent people even having the chance to
hear ideas they don't like.)
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 06:15:44 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 05:28:25 AM
We are in different times now. It's easier than ever to lose your job, and for crazier reasons than ever before.
If this were a student paper, I'd write on it. "Evidence? This is a big assertion." I probably would not be particularly impressed with the student's reasoning skills if the evidence they provided was 20 news stories from the last 2 years about weird different incidents, many with complicating factors or missing information.
In that case I'll just wait for the all the research coming from higher education social science fields (something like 95% of these folks self-identify as liberal) showing how their amplification of racial and other identity issues (read:
grievances) has contributed to America's culture war, doxxing, and other destructive trends. They'd love for us to know much more about the 'good trouble' they're getting us into, and its negative effects on the health of the nation, wouldn't they?
Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 06:43:15 AM
In that case I'll just wait for the all the research coming from higher education social science fields (something like 95% of these folks self-identify as liberal) showing how their amplification of racial and other identity issues (read: grievances) has contributed to America's culture war, doxxing, and other destructive trends. They'd love for us to know much more about the 'good trouble' they're getting us into, and its negative effects on the health of the nation, wouldn't they?
If I recall correctly, doxxing got popular in the 90's not by liberals with grievances, but by anti-choice radicals for the purpose of murdering Planned Parenthood employees. You should probably also follow up on the bigger modern examples like Gamergate- a bunch of alt right incels doxxing for the purpose of rape and murder of feminists that slighted them in youtube videos.
And with the Culture War, y'all are the ones with the cheesy political hot-take books that co-opted it and made it the brand that it is today.
Live by the whataboutism, die by the whataboutism.
I'm not in a position to comment about how careful anyone here needs to be about upsetting students. YMMV. I don't teach political science, history or such. So far, usually the only things I do that occasionally upsets students are asking them to work harder and awarding grades. Nevertheless, a recent communication from the provost included this:
"Academic leadership is going to take a systematic look at the curriculum through a social justice lens and recommend changes where appropriate."
The potential for strict administrative control of our teaching could easily be on the horizon. And it might get interesting; whereas, people with guaranteed academic freedom will have used it to create infringements on their academic freedom.
ETA:
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 06:15:44 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 05:28:25 AM
We are in different times now. It's easier than ever to lose your job, and for crazier reasons than ever before.
If this were a student paper, I'd write on it. "Evidence? This is a big assertion." I probably would not be particularly impressed with the student's reasoning skills if the evidence they provided was 20 news stories from the last 2 years about weird different incidents, many with complicating factors or missing information.
This doesn't mean more people are getting fired for crazy reasons today than before, though that would support the claim. It means the reasons you can get you fired are getting crazier, so people are having to be extra careful not to be fired for things you shouldn't be fired for, because they are getting crazy.
Aside: a friend of mine just quit an administrative job held for many years because of the stupid, anti-white racist 'training' she would have had to take to continue in Fall 2021.
So had she reported for training in the fall, she would have been fired for sounding off (unavoidable, since she is well educated, caring and has a strong aversion to propaganda and lies) instead of sitting there and taking the indoctrination like a good loyal subject.
At any rate, my post followed a
prediction made by caracal upthread:
Quote from: Caracal on September 28, 2021, 04:27:02 AM
Quote from: downer on September 27, 2021, 12:33:44 PM
I don't know what society you people are living in, but the one I'm in isn't much like that. It is true that I've seen some people talk about microagressions and the like, but I've seen no sign that that stuff is taken seriously by deans or chairs.
It seems to me that both sides of the debate are guilty of some oversensitivity and hyperbole.
That's usually how this stuff goes. Some weird thing happens at Wesleyan and people pretend its some massive national issue where nobody can teach anything anymore. Nobody at my institution, student, faculty or admin has ever even uttered the words "trigger warnings," and I continue to teach about various upsetting things without the slightest complaint.
:
...and as a prediction, I would definitely stand by it, unless something as done. Hopefully there is enough furor, for example organized objection to public school CRT-that's-not-really-CRT-because-you're-too-dumb-to-understand-what-CRT-is from parents that the radical left will get it through its skull that there's growing opposition.